Originally Posted by bricky
I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Of course "urban" LA didn't go through any absolute decline in the past 20 years. As you explained, there is a lot more (really semi) urban stuff now than 20 years ago. I'm talking about LA's place in the world in general. I'll state right now that I didn't write a thesis on this, and can just go on anecdotal stuff that I've read and heard. I'm in my early 30s, and started to read and follow the economic news in the late 80s and early 90s. Plus I've seen old films etc. And I have the impression that LA was a much bigger deal in the 70s and 80s than it is now. In the 70s, lots of people were sure it would overtake NY in the not-so-distant future. In the 80s, it was the emergent co-capital of the Pacific Rim, along with Tokyo. And remember, NY's (or for that matter, London's) place as an undisputed top-three world city was not nearly as established back then, as it is now.
Sure, urban LA made progress, but with world class urbanity, we're talking about something like going from 10 to 20, on a scale of 100. The numbers are just an example, but I hope you understand what I mean. Meanwhile NY really cleaned itself up, and has a lock on finance, and the explosion of money that have come with it over the past 30 years. London went from the capital of a declining old colonial power, frumpy, relatively homogeneous, likely to be overtaken by Frankfurt anytime, into the undisputed financial capital of Europe, as well as a huge center for global immigration, Russian and Indian billionaires, etc. Meanwhile, nobody talks about LA as the capital of the Pacific Rim anymore, as the most diverse city on earth, as the place to glimpse the future of America... Sure your urbanism went from non-existent to just weak, but a lot of other relative advantages were lost over the same period.
I really do wish LA the best, but unless the people in power understand the current (changed) situation, they can't really improve their city and state.
|
Threaded Mode